Natichu

I know Jussi and I were briefly discussing this in another thread, and don't know that we ever reached a conclusion. Is it that previously you could submit for both in the same session, and now you can't? Or is it that previously you needed to submit twice to obtain TH, but now can submit only once? Any clarification anyone can provide around which way the process shifted and when would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks so much for the offer! Unfortunately I don't think that will quite fit the bill in terms of era and size. But I very much appreciate the chance to consider the option! Photos are always welcome, as it all goes into developing my thoughts on what I'd like to buy.

Certainly not intends as a correction Jussi - as far as I'm concerned, you're much more likely to be right than I am! I figured I had things backwards. Maybe one of the forums more knowledgeable agents/vendors will be able to weigh in to set us straight one way or the other.

Regarding the shinsa process, I had thought it was the opposite - that previously you had to submit twice to get TH, but could now submit once and have it evaluated at both levels. The NBTHK price listing (https://www.touken.or.jp/english/aboutus.html - see Shinsa Price List) seems to indicate you can do both at once. Interesting to see that I've gotten it backwards! Does anyone know when this shift happened?

Addendum: have done a little digging, and as this was a post-war change, that certainly clears up the timeline. Thanks again Ray! Initial post: Many thanks Ray! That certainly explains it. Would you say it's accurate to assume that if I see 広 in a modern source, the smith likely signed with the older form 廣?

Hi all, I've been looking at a few smiths recently with names ending in "-hiro". I've noted that the NBTHK kanteisho (and Markus Sesko's' Swordsmiths A-Z) use the kanji "広", whereas the smiths themselves all seem to have used "廣". In searching on the Nihonto smiths database it looks like there is in fact only one smith with "広" in their name (Munehiro, a Showa era smith). Is the reason for this solely because the 廣 kanji is considered archaic? Or is there something else going on here? Any guidance here would be greatly appreciated. For bonus points, as it were, does anyone know of any other common kanji substitutions used by the NBTHK like this one? Images attached for reference.

Excellent timing, as this just came up in Aoi: https://www.aoijapan.com/wakizashi：kawachi-no-kami-fujiwara-kunisuke-first-generationnbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-token/ A shobu zukuri wakizashi (unless you're of the view that unless the shinogi meets the mune directly at the point, it's not a true shobu zukuri), quite lovely to my eye but I'm very partial to that blade shape.

Many thanks Jussi, these threads have been a lot of fun thus far and a great way for a beginner like me to start to dive into things a bit more, even if it's just to learn about details I didn't even know I should be considering. And don't worry about not knowing enough Robert, you won't do worse than I am and it's good fun to throw your hat into the ring.

Unfortunately I can't quite make out the kanji. Any chance of getting the relevant portion typed out?

I think it might bear fruit for some. If you have a deep knowledge of painters, it may give you a mental hook or anchoring point to better remember smiths and some of their qualities (scaffolding off your existing knowledge). Or it might help you understand the relative ranking of smiths' skills and prestige. It doesn't do any of the above for me, but I can see it being both entertaining and helpful for some. After all, someone familiar with swords once said that if you know the way broadly you'll see it in all things.

While I only know a little about smiths, and even less about painters, I very much enjoy the Muramasa-as-Caravaggio casting.

I certainly understood you to mean that for the purposes of this exercise (and in particular that sword) to ignore hataraki, not that they are to be ignored generally. To me, this looks a clean choji-midare into a standard komaru boshi. My recollection of Facts and Fundamentals is that transition strongly points to shinto era, but that's about as far as I can go.

That is much closer than I thought I might be! Clear proof that even a stopped clock is close enough to right every so often I suppose. Gunome certainly makes more sense than choji. Many thanks, and I look forward to the next portions of the thread.

Notare of some variety, with occasional choji interspersed? Not entirely sure what the question is, but have a feeling that answer is incorrect.

I'm still not sure I follow, but very much appreciate the answer! Interesting to so ko-midare thrown in there as well.

This was discussed a bit here: https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/49930-a-nihonto-display-case-at-home/#comment-520223 I think as a beginner like myself it's easy to lose sight of the fact that there is a lot of diversity of views in the hobby. While in have no doubt @ROKUJURO@ROKUJURO is entirely correct as to the orthodox take on things, katana and tachi kake clearly exist for a reason, and there are Japanese companies doing beautiful work on displays, such as: https://en.katana-case-shi.com/ Food for thought at least. Even if you're straying outside the orthodox position, it doesn't mean it's not in keeping with at least some Japanese collectors.

At any rate, I'm with the group and happy to drop the point to see where the thread goes, and appreciate the effort to educate by Jacques and his perspective.

Precisely that. Which, as the intro clause to that paragraph makes clear ("Gunome-midare:...") as well as the outro ("...this kind of gunome-midare work.") is a form of gunome-midare. So the regularity doesn't move it out of the midareba category it would seem, at least by Nakahara's version of things. At least that is my reading of it, so it isn't worth much. But given the Socratic nature of these proceedings, that's what we seem to be stuck with at the moment.

With respect, no one is arguing gunome-midare doesn't exist. How does this prove your point or show a contradiction? Naming the specific (ie the subtype) doesn't mean the general (ie overarching type) doesn't exist as a category. Again, this isn't to say I think (or even have the knowledge base) to say you're wrong, just that I don't think the pieces you've put forward logically support your position. At any rate, I look forward to the reading of the hamon in Monday.

Just on that point: "刃紋：刃紋は小乱れ、小丁子乱れとなり染み心となる。" The official Japanese description on Aoi for this sword: https://www.aoijapan.com/katana：mumei-unsigned-attributed-to-ko-aoe-nbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-tokenconsignment-sale/ At any rate, I'm content either way, but was just interesting to see come up (albeit ko-midare).

As you note Jussi, it's a bit of a taxonomical difference likely without great substance except to those at the highest of levels. For example, in my case, does it matter whether what I can't identify is a hamon type or a hamon subtype? Either way, the nature of the classification is not exactly nearly as important as the fact I can't identify it properly either way LOL.

I think we're straying well beyond my knowledge and abilities here but I'd say:

Just to close the loop on my previous thought, I can see both the Connoisseur's Guide (page 92) and Facts and Fundamentals (page 44) being somewhat ambiguous, but likely leaning towards Jacques' point overall.

Given my failing grade thus far, I have to assume I'll be wrong, but: